Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she’s not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students’ birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years...

Random co-ed?! She's a law student! I've been in law schools since 1978, and I've never heard female law students called "co-eds." What the hell is a co-ed? Even as a word for female undergraduates, it's like you're from 1931. Here's the original teenage heartthrob, Rudy Vallée, singing his great old college song, "Betty Co-ed":

Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Harvard,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Yale's deep blue,
Betty Co-ed's a golden head for Princeton,
Her dress I guess is black for old Purdue!

I first learned the names of famous universities hearing that song on an LP of college songs that my parents had. The cover photo had rows of pretty girls each holding up a pennant with the name of a college on it.

Betty Co-ed's a smile for Pennsylvania,
Her heart is Dartmouth's treasure, so 'tis said,
Betty Co-ed is loved by every college boy,
But I'm the one who's loved by Betty Co-ed!

Now, Betty has a lot of boyfriends. Some may even call her a "slut." That was back in the day when a girl on campus caused quite a hubbub. Did Betty put out? What birth-control did Betty use? How much did it cost? Who paid? I don't know, but how many voters of today remember what college was like back when Rudy Vallée was making women swoon?

Vallée... was perhaps the first complete example of the 20th century mass media pop star. Flappers mobbed him wherever he went. His live appearances were usually sold out, and even if his singing could hardly be heard in those venues not yet equipped with the new electronic microphones, his screaming female fans went home happy if they had caught sight of his lips through the opening of the trademark megaphone he sang through.

Vallee had a gentle voice:

Vallée became the most prominent and, arguably, the first of a new style of popular singer, the crooner. Previously, popular singers needed strong projecting voices to fill theaters in the days before the electric microphone. Crooners had soft voices that were well suited to the intimacy of the new medium of the radio.

Ah, the radio! You can't sound too harsh on the radio, especially when you're pouring your sounds into the ears of women. I know one older woman who, finding Rush too harsh, has moved on Bill Bennett, who seems caring.

But back to my point: co-ed. This is an old-fashioned label to stick on a woman, and it shouldn't be used anymore even to apply to undergraduates. But you just sound ignorant to call a female law student a "co-ed." And that ignorance continues with this talk of Sandra Fluke not being "a random co-ed." None of the students at an elite law school like Georgetown are "random." There's an elaborate, multi-factored admissions process, and it specifically looks for applicants who aren't coming straight from college but have taken time and shown engagement with social and political issues.

A "30 year old long time liberal activist" sounds exactly like the kind of person who would apply to law school and get accepted with enthusiasm, because the schools want students who will contribute to the classroom discussions about the things we talk about in law school, like sex discrimination. This is what classroom diversity means. And we want students who will take their law school education and use it different ways, especially in political activism. So what if Fluke "enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students’ birth control"? I have no idea if that's why she selected Georgetown, but it's not a bad thing, it's not something law schools don't like, and it's not an unusual orientation for a law student to have.

McCain also tells us that Fluke has argued that it's sex discrimination for insurance not to cover "gender-reassignment" surgery. Sorry, this is typical law-journal material. Of course, an advocate in the category she belongs to would make arguments like this. Argue with these arguments all you want. But it doesn't make Sandra Fluke some nefarious pseudo law student. She sounds like a typical excellent law student at an elite law school.

Which is to say: the personal put-downs sound old-fashioned and sexist.

The right wing stepped in it with Fluke. Having stepped in it, they keep smushing around in it.

As a woman, as a law professor, as a woman law professor, I don't want to be seen anywhere near these guys. Could you start acting normal about women participating in public debate?

Now let's have a serious debate about insurance. Yeah. It's not much fun at all. But you've got to quit having your fun with women and sex — in this context! — or you are going to alienate more and more women voters — and men voters — every day. Good lord! It's super Tuesday. We should be talking about Mitt Romney, not Sandra Fluke. Yeah: Mitt Romney and insurance. Boring. Too bad.

505 comments:

Didn't Fluke say that her birth control while in law school was going to cost her $3,000? And that someone else --Georgetown-- should pay for it? That's incredible. Why are you choosing to focus on that to any extent whatsoever?

Pointing out that there's shenanigans going on with Fluke is an affront to women?

I wish you'd get this worked up when the Democrats joke about gang raping and murdering Sarah Palin and her teenaged daughters, or any of the other vile things that go on 24/7 on the left towards the right.

> I have no idea if that's why she selected Georgetown, but it's not a bad thing, it's not something law schools don't like, and it's not an unusual orientation for a law student to have.

While her reason for choosing Georgetown may have made her attractive to Georgetown, the question is whether she's some innocent who wandered into this or is, as she appears to be, a partisan on this issue.

And, her $1k/year number is suspect. Either she's lying or she's not trying to reduce the costs that she claims are excessive.

She claims $1k/year, so let's see her numbers.

Birth control pills are $4/month at walmart and $9 at CVS and Target. Even if she spends $20, we're looking at less than $250/year. If the remainder is condoms, she should be buying "packs", which are $0.14-$0.33 per condom at Amazon for small quantities.

On Super Tuesday, when we're trying to find a replacement for the worst, most dangerous president in the history of the republic, I was hoping to come here and find the most vital topics of the day discussed.

And I was not disappointed: There can be nothing more important than who's going to pay the $9 per month for this law student's birth control.

I sometimes awake in a cold sweat, screaming, with this thought: Where will she come up with that kind of scratch? And what names has she been called?

By the way -- is this a guest-blogging by Carol Herman? It's right out of her stream-of-consciousness and clang association form guide. "And speaking of Howdie Doodie, he had a wooden pecker. And he wouldn't peck her. But now that Mussolini would peck anything that moved...."

No doubt Ms. Fluke is an excellent law student--of the pain in the ass, single issue obsessed variety. And she's a little careless with her assertions, i.e. $3,000 and budget busting, when you can get contraception for free at Planned Parenthood or $9 a month down at the local CVS.

But being an excellent law student does not make her Joan of Arc, nor does it exempt her from criticism.

That said the Limbaugh contingent sorta stepped in a meadow muffin here, and can't seem to get out of it.

So if Fluke was a male co-ed arguing for coverage of his birth control, could we drop all this bullshit and get honest. By that I mean we accept that he was not random, not entitled, not a victim, and not really in need of government support for his sex life. Oh, but Fluke is a woman, and therefore needs a lot of protecting, the poor little thing.

Althouse, could you imagine doing what you are doing if Fluke was a guy arguing for free condoms to avoid lifelong attachment and responsibility to a woman and child he did not want to have?

Now let's have a serious debate about insurance. Yeah. It's not much fun at all. But you've got to quit having your fun with women and sex — in this context! — or you are going to alienate more and more women voters

Yes, lets!Oh, we can't. We're talking about Stacy McCain.The lengths people will go to to keep us from talking about the important things!

None of the students at an elite law school like Georgetown are "random." There's an elaborate, multi-factored admissions process, and it specifically looks for applicants who aren't coming straight from college but have taken time and shown engagement with social and political issues.

When your entire adult life has been in a liberal cocoon, the sentences above seem normal and something to brag about.

Betty Coed did put out. She relied on condoms. Carried them herself, in case the boys didn't have any. Betty didn't regret her youthful flings. She became a faithful wife and mother and went to law school when the kids got older. She had a nice career as an assistant prosecutor in Troy, NY and then opened a small litigation firm. One of her daughters went to Harvard Law and became a Supreme Court clear. The other daughter was very happy as a mother of six (!) children and wife to a successful cement contractor. Her boys did not turn out so well, but Betty loves them just as much.

Can I say this again? We have $1,000,000,000,000 in unfunded entitlement liabilities. We have an energy crises on the horizon that will hurt the economy. We have giant gov't controlling every aspect of our lives.

And the Democrats have successfully made giving free birth control to college students and employees of all businesses the main campaign issue. And made a winner for them.

I hope Fluke is smarter than Cindy Sheehan and not push her 15 minutes beyond what is needed by the Dem party at the present time. If she thinks she has a forum beyond this for her views and activism, she will find herself abandoned by the Dems just as was Sheehan.

"None of the students at an elite law school like Georgetown are "random." There's an elaborate, multi-factored admissions process, and it specifically looks for applicants who aren't coming straight from college but have taken time and shown engagement with social and political issues."

Althouse, could you imagine doing what you are doing if Fluke was a guy arguing for free condoms to avoid lifelong attachment and responsibility to a woman and child he did not want to have?

As I said yesterday, imagine if the mandate had been only benefits for male contraception.Only zero copay condoms and vasectomies. How would the argument/argument makers change?I believe the women fighting for this would be so very against that.

That may be true, but those kinds of birth control aren't advisable for all women. You're not in the best position to make these decisions. The individual women and their doctors have more specific knowledge of which kind of birth control is appropriate. I recommend reading up on how birth control actually works. It isn't as cheap and simple as you're making it sound.

Now let's have a serious debate about insurance. Yeah. It's not much fun at all. But you've got to quit having your fun with women and sex — in this context! — or you are going to alienate more and more women voters — and men voters — every day. Good lord!

A "30 year old long time liberal activist" sounds exactly like the kind of person who would apply to law school and get accepted with enthusiasm, because the schools want students who will contribute to the classroom discussions about the things we talk about in law school, like sex discrimination. This is what classroom diversity means.

Hysterical.

Yes, because at 30 (and she's no a 1L is she?) you have so much real world experience to add to the riveting and diverse classroom disucssions on topics such as "sex discrimination"!!!

Wow, I though you had more self awareness and perspective than that, Ann.

Why didn't you just cut out a bunch of words from that post and simply write: Rush and those other stupid right wing meanies don't know how smart law students are and how diverse a law school education is and be done with it?

I don't care what Fluke did or does on her own time, but she more or less got up in front of the world and lied about the horrors that happen when contraception isn't available for free. Hell, rape victims become so confused that they don't even go to the police.

I think you are reaching with this one. If the woman designed her path to Georgetown as a Trojan Horse from day one, then that is pertinent information on her motivations and trustworthiness. You may say law students do this kind of stuff all the time, and if that is true that is more evidence to consider. Both points are relevant and should be free to be discussed.

We're only a couple of years from the MSM trying their best at destroying a man just because Obama walked into his front yard and he asked Obama a question. Is anything that happened to Fluke as bad as what was given to Joe the Plummer? This woman inserted herself into the national dialogue as part of a deliberate political plot, and as far as I am concerned any attack one can use on any political opponent is fair game for her.

TosaGuy....I actually had a little respect for Cindy Sheehan after Obama got in office. Her son was still dead. She was still screaming about it. And she admited it.....that she realized she was used by the Democrats and now they didn't need her anymore so she could no longer get headlines.

Remember back in college, a third tier state school, myself and another female were vocal in being pro-life. The professor loved a real debate. While both at the time we're nominally religious, we both had backgrounds of multiple unintentional babies in our families and defended the value of our unplanned relatives.

So in the scope of diversity, even though I feel her disagreement is a direct attack of Georgetown, accepting her as a law student wasn't wrong.

Did anybody notice in the candidate forum on Saturday, a father of a wounded Iraq war vet said their health insurance co-pays are being raised by the Obama administration? At the exact moment women are being promised zero copay tubal ligations?

Oh, we can't talk about that. Someone out there said something unflattering about Ms Fluke.

That type of birth control works for most women. Fluke represented the $3k/3yrs figure as representative. Infact, $1k/yr is not typical, and a reasonable argument can be made that mandates should not be made on fringe cases.

A serious discussion of insurance and the economy would heap more scorn on Fluke than she's ever experienced in her life.

DEAR GAWD this woman thinks that anything that is "good" to her mind can simply be provided by *somebody* and all the numbers are still going to work, because her heart is pure or something like that.

Where is the place for a discussion of the economy or the nature of "insurance" with someone who's life focus is convincing everyone that people shouldn't ever have to pay for their own conditions, or even just their own desires? Something is expensive, and I want it, so someone else HAS to pay?

The proper thing is to joke about my need for free beer (if I drank it) or the car the government owes me or the new boobs. I want new boobs, dammit!

The problem with that argument is that she would probably agree and never see the problem.

Speaking of boredom, I'm tired of the endless rounds tu quoque arguments... Yeah I know, the left has it coming, but there's no end to it, and it's reached truly sickening proportions. We're losing in a big way.

The individual women and their doctors have more specific knowledge of which kind of birth control is appropriate

It really is no more complicated than many other medicines. The doctor prescribes the one he generally likes for you. If that doesn't suit you, for a variety of reasons, you ask for a different kind. Sometimes it's trial and error.But it's the same way if your child has chronic ear infections. Sometimes one kind of penicillin doesn't work and you have to get another kind, which is more expensive.

Tell a mother with a sick child that her child's medicine is just not as important as a law student's contraception. Mom has to pay.

Anne - "the schools want students who will contribute to the classroom discussions about the things we talk about in law school, like sex discrimination."

Then I suppose they really need fewer "structural feminists" (they have an over supply) and a few more traditionalists. After all the law is like the sun and the rain "for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

It's like the schools of social work and the schools of counseling that are trying to kick out religious traditionalists who may have a hard time serving the 1.6% of the population that's gay but will do a better job with 40% to 80% of the population who's religious.

It's hard to argue that commie counselors can do a better job than traditionalist counselors in helping trads. And there are many more trads than commies.

Progressive lawyers can't even make decent arguments for non-progressive positions (even if the ABA hasn't banned a particular line of argument). But traditionalists can spout liberal dogma easily because they are in both worlds.

I suspect that Conservative Media using its talk radio, its exposing libs books, and its attack blogs is desperate to protect their golden flow.

Money (I.e., audience to sell to advertisers) is the real mother's milk flowing through the right wing media's tit. And Rush has soured the milk for their audience.

What they must try and do is preach loudly that Fluke is not an innocent young woman dealing with coming of age problems faced by our daughters. If she remains seen that way, then half of their own audience will leave them and come to Fluke's defense...I did.

Law School has all types, as the Professor points out, but why would being caught being an older female disqualify Fluke?

IMO the answer is that educated women compete with men for leadership honors.

"Just a few weeks ago it was so cheap and simple that insurers could throw it in at no additional charge and come out ahead on the deal. What happened?"

Idiot Liberal Math and Logic is what happened.

Here's the Idiot Liberal Math and Logic equation: "Birth control is too expensive and too complicated for individuals to purchase, so we'll make health insurers cover it, free of charge. And for those of you concerned about this increasing the cost of your insurance, don't worry. Birth control is cheap and simple, so this won't increase premiums at all."

"30 year old long time liberal activist" sounds exactly like the kind of person who would apply to law school and get accepted with enthusiasm, because the schools want students who will contribute to the classroom discussions about the things we talk about in law school, like sex discrimination. This is what classroom diversity means."

Now let's have a serious debate about insurance. Yeah. It's not much fun at all. But you've got to quit having your fun with women and sex — in this context! — or you are going to alienate more and more women voters — and men voters — every day.

Who's "you?" Are we to believe that we cannot have a serious debate about insurance until every single conservative commentator says nothing whatsoever mean about any woman anywhere ever? Isn't that just a roundabout way of refusing to talk about insurance?

The whole situation is degrading to women. First she parades herself in front of Congress bragging about how much of a slut she is, $3000 for contraception either an over-exaggeration or she is a slut. Second, she has set back the women's movement decades with her "I need someone to take care of me!!" line. We were raised to take care of ourselves, to be independent, and now this flake comes along and screams that she can't take care of her own self and we are supposed to feel sorry for her(poor baby) and forget decades of women's liberation.I am embarrassed and she should be also. I can take care of myself, why can't she?And third, where is the outcry against the liberals and their attacks on women (including against Hillary during Bill's first campaign for president), especially conservative women: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Michelle Bachman and others?Any Liberals want to defend this?

Hey, who cares about this dumb chick anyway, there's something much more important to talk about: check out the Betty Boop cartoon at 1:30. The guy actually F A R T S!

This has got to be a first in not only animation but for any commercial film whatsoever. This is a bigger discovery than the Dead Sea Scrolls! The history of the Moving Picture Industry will needs to be rewritten as of today.

"And the Democrats have successfully made giving free birth control to college students and employees of all businesses the main campaign issue. And made a winner for them."

If we don't complain about this, not about the "free" part and what that means to the economy, or the infringement on the rights of Catholic institutions...

What else can we ever complain about ever again?

It's going to set a standard. Anything less is only an issue for opportunistic (or racist) reasons. After all, it's not fair to give women all this free stuff that doesn't even matter, how can we not have all health care be free? Hater! And the Catholic church had to swallow the loss of their religious exception despite the obvious conflict with their principles, so what are you complaining about, you hater?

I've seen that in comments already... some states require this and the Catholics don't complain (I doubt this is even true) so what is the issue now? If you choose to participate in the economy shouldn't you just follow all the rules?

It's ridiculous to offer girl-stuff for free when medicine that is necessary or else you *die* has co-pays. It's devastating to our economy to add ever more entitlements, even if these are funded directly instead of cycled through taxes. The loss of religious freedom and respect for conscience will be sorely missed, once it's too late.

Ronald Reagan knew a couple of things very, very well. He knew to NEVER step on anything on stage that wasn't his "line." He knew where to stand. And, he focused, well, on the camera angles.

Rush Limbaugh, here? He became the messenger. Today, is Super Tuesday. And, SHOT OUT FROM UNDER MITT ... was any semblance of a message "anticipating a great win."

Instead? You got entertained by Rush Limbaugh. As if men and women across America need to be reminded how the religious zealots would like nothing better than to get into everyone's underpants!

Oh, and Rush wants porn videos. He says, because he's paid taxes ... he deserves more porn that John Edwards. Or just about any other freak that wants to peek in.

Sandra Fluke, last week, was unknown.

The right wing doesn't even own this story! You should see what gets said along America's political divide ... where most of the voters refuse to be called either democrats or republicans, for that matter.

OK, "co-ed" is the most oddly old-fashioned word -- because it implies that there's something unusual about a female college student.

But can we stop talking about Fluke and get back to 1) is contraception a medically-necessary treatment?2) does the government have the right to oblige employers who object for religious reasons to purchase contraception (plus other goodies) for their employees via insurance, or directly, for self-insured plans?3) What about my health club membership? I'm sure that if I had the $80 bells-and-whistles place paid for by my employer, I'd go more often and be plenty healthier than my $9 Fitness 19 (no showers, just a changing room) membership.4) What's going to happen when everyone who now uses the $9 Target pills switches to the $90 more-convenient name-brand product because its FREE FREE FREE, and when Big Pharma decides to charge $200 because they can?5) Isn't it bizarre that female contraception now has such a privileged place in health insurance plans? -- It's definitely the priciest of the "preventive care" items, and a lot of items which are arguably preventive (especially in the sense of preventing a mild malady from getting worse) are not included in the list.

tim maguire. Yes, people have entered this fray and comported themselves admirably. Ann for one. Unfortunately, very few on the right have. As I am on the right muself, I find it utterly dismaying. Dismaying that no matter how many times the right is offered a chance to back off from this total catastrophe, many (a great many of those commenting here) are apparently unable to do so. They are as wedded to an ideological hatred as Peter Gleick was when he fraudulently stole documents on global warming from Heartland. People here have not perpetrated fraud on this, obviously. But just as Gleick won't own up to how he came by the one key faked document, and is going down with his ship as a result, so those here are going down clinging to a salacious angle on a story that in fact should have nothing to do with sex at all. They are doing so for the same reason as Gleick. Their own sense of grievance and self-righteousness is more important to them than either truth or political effectiveness.

No fan of the Other McCain I, but the guy's allowed his say and his opinion.

This girl is a hard core provocateur (as one blogger, maybe the Anchoress called her) and was put up there for a specific reason, but you sound as if don't want her talked about in a critical manner because she's a female law student.

Ann Althouse said...

Good lord! It's super Tuesday. We should be talking about Mitt Romney, not Sandra Fluke.

You put up the post, not us.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Birth control pills are $4/month at walmart and $9 at CVS and Target.

That may be true, but those kinds of birth control aren't advisable for all women.

But Ms Fluck never specified who exactly has a $1000/year bill. The figure was just thrown out as an implication it was somehow typical.

In the olden days we had medical insurance. Most people paid all of their medical bills out of pocket and relied on their insurance for when they were injured or seriously ill.

This had several benefits: vast decrease in paperwork and claims; market forces effected prices; customers made some of their medical decisions based on cost. Insurance was much cheaper then. Almost anyone who wanted it could afford it. Most doctors "worked with" their patients directly to provide care that could not be immediately paid for.

Now we have converted the words "medical insurance" to mean - someone else should pay for all my medical care and I should be allowed to have all of the care I want. Hilarity ensued.

Althouse has the hots for women getting free condoms but the interest in our political future is boring. What is boring is Feminism.Sorry Ann, It ain't working - look at women enrolling in Engineering the last 20 years.

Republicans have got to let this one go. Like the Japanese in the Pacific war, Sandra Fluke is one island that's impregnable (in a manner of speaking). Through bypassing her they stand a better chance of winning the main prize.

The incident may yet be turned to Republicans' advantage. As Bill Clinton did with Sister Souljah, Mitt Romney can have his "Rush Limbaugh" moment that will help him with moderates and Independents more than it will hurt him with conservatives.

So what if Fluke "enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students’ birth control"?

So what if agents infiltrate private organizations with the purpose of undermining and subverting them?

I'm sure that every co-ed law professor just loves to have students enrolled in her class for the purpose of disrupting the class and telling her how to teach and run things (including calling her a co-ed). Because that's what "education" is all about, right, political activism, not actual learning.

I haven't got past the first two comments on this thread, but MY GOD, Althouse, you are going through an incredible amount of mental and linguistic contortions in order to portray Fluke as anything other than what she has been proven to be - a card-carrying member of Little Black Jesus' army of useful idiots, a political prop set up by the scum on the left as an "ultimate moral authority" figure.

Well, at least I can comfort myself that, perhaps Meade's vote will cancel out your all-but-inevitable vote for the SCOAMF.

Tax payers pay for women to be on medical leave from work [under disability] when they are pregnant, which would not happen unless they had sex. So why suddenly are conservatives upset about contraception, which is a fraction of the cost?

How about a compromise.....if I am paying for some gals birth control (either through hirer taxes for higher insurance premiums on men), then she should make herself "available" to me when I am looking for some action.

So here we are, a society being ruined by debt, unwilling even to pay for what we already consume, and arguing about the best way to give away more free stuff. Even a routine, predictable personal expense has to be paid for with money borrowed from China, to be repaid by our grandchildren. People who argue for this are the ones who are immoral.

Rudy Vallée? Betty Co-ed?! What are you on about? Sometimes your stream of consciousness heads off into brooks and tributaries and sets up a base camp there.

Ms. Fluke is very comely woman. There's certainly nothing inherently wrong with her being thirty years old and a committed activist except that she was held up as a 'typical' naive young college student. I suspect most people assumed (as I did) that she was in her early twenties (hence the 'co-ed' label of convenience) and formed their rebuttals accordingly.

Then it's discovered that she's a ringer, a plant. She had been prepping for this fight for a long time and she was hand-picked, not plucked at random. That's worth mentioning. It's an important feature of the story.

I'm sorry he didn't use a term that's more to your satisfaction but when I hear 'co-ed' I think 'late teens, early twenties female college student'. The online dictionary says "A woman who attends a coeducational college or university." and the first word that comes up on thesaurus is "undergraduate". And not to be snarky but I just looked that up in 2012.

I'm a graduate of Georgetown Law and former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Based on her testimony, I wonder how much Ms. Fluke really knows about the university or the Constitution.

As a law student 20 years ago, I wasn't confronted by crucifixes in the classroom or, in truth, by any religious imagery anywhere. In that respect the law school has a different "feel" than the university. The law school chapel was an unadorned, multipurpose room in the basement used for Mass when it wasn't used for Gilbert and Sullivan Society rehearsals and club meetings. Among the clubs while I was there, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance was particularly vigorous.

I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.

Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further." . . .

Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.

Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.

Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.

Men have sacrificed a ton for women...and its time some ask about the benefits. Boys to college far less, are drugged in school routinely (odd how ADHD seems to impact boys so heavily and nobody calls BS on it), milk themselves with far greater frequency...but still must walk on egg shells lest they anger women who seem bizarrely inconsistent with the target of their ire.

The best political sting ever was what the Democrats did to Bush 41. They hounded and hounded and hounded him to raise taxes. Finally he agreed to a compromise tax increase. Then the Democrats used that against him in the 1992 election. Attacked him for raising taxes. The sting was executed perfectly.

The Democrats are doing something similiar now. Obama will get 95+% of the Black vote, but they may not vote in huge numbers this year. So they are counting on the female vote. Especially younger females. Minnesota Democrats introduced a bill today to make it illegal for any insurance plan to have a co-pay on birth control (except for condomns).

Who would have thought that free sexual aids could determine a Presidential election.

Random co-ed?! She's a law student! I've been in law schools since 1978, and I've never heard female law students called "co-eds."

Er, that's part of the point. Fluke was being marketed as a random young college student (is it okay to use the phrase "young college student"? I wouldn't want to accidentally spawn another outraged post based on the use of a slightly antiquated term, although I'm sure that would be time well-spent rather than focusing on trivial matters like eradication of religious freedoms under the First Amendment.

I saw this all over my Facebook pages. Why pick on some poor little college girl? (One of my posters used the term "girl." I would never be so crude and disprespectful, as I haven't heard the term since the 1930's.) But Fluke, an experienced activist, knew of Georgetown's policy before she attended, and by some accounts went there with the goal of forcing a Catholic institution to violate core elements of its moral foundation.

Although she might not have put it that way. Only the left has honorable principles, and they must be obeyed by all.

Althouse: Where cruel neutrality and every single cliche Leftist NewSpeak utterance and selective outrage topic meet.

BTW, Ann...the Maher/Super PAC donation I brought up that you dismissed as a "non-issue" had already been picked up by The Weekly Standard, Kirsten Powers and about half the Twitterverse. Not because of me, of course, but because to some of us, allowing that shit to go unremarked is as good as agreeing with it. Especially in the recent days of Outrageous Outrage towards Limbaugh.

If the President of the United States accepts a donation from a man who calls women c*nts and tw*ts is still your kinda guy, vote for him again.

Don't pretend he has NO say in what money he accepts, especially since former Mouth of Sauron Bill Burton is running the PAC. Are you suggesting Burton is forced to accept ALL donations, regardless of the precious "optics".

Do you want we to believe a President that calls me "the enemy", that tells me to "shut up and sit in the back", that justifies his intransigence by saying "I won", that treats duly elected officials of the opposing party who vote as they were instructed by their constituents as "things to go around to advance his agenda" doesn't have Burton's BlackBerry number and can reject this donation with a word?

His very own Sista Soluja moment awaits him. She will be disappointed when he fails to call. Won't you?

You want to see a non-issue? Let's debate the genesis and deep cultural meaning behind the Phallocentric term "co-ed". By all means, let's do that.

Am I the only person that notices a peculiar combination of chivalry and feminism in the reaction of Mr. Fluke and the sisterhood? Much of this kerfuffle is because a male, Rush Limbaugh, had the audacity to say something cutting to a female. How dare he?! Women like Ms. Fluke want to participate in the public marketplace of ideas, but then they want to retain atavistic notions that it's somehow ruder to insult a woman than to insult a man.

My feminist daughter carries on about men "disrespecting women" which implicitly is an endorsement of pre-feminist chivalry, where women, dainty creatures that they are, must be protected from the rough and tumble discourse of the real world.

The default position of feminists is that women, by virtue of their two X chromosomes, are immune from criticism. They've just substituted "misogynist" for "cad".

As the Komen/Planned Parenthood brouhaha showed, it's all reminiscent of junior high where the popular girls will always show the unpopular kids just who sets the social standards.

It's a the Conservative point to admit that Rush jumped the shark when he picked on this the female student for low class vulgar slander ( Rush's own words)over the mortal sin of asking that her Insurance Policy include birth control reimbursement.

Why not just say no to her? Or better yet, we could make her beg like Oliver Twist had to beg for more food from the institution he was trapped inside.

Meanwhile Medicare pushes free (not insured and thus paid for by premiums, but FREE) $8,000 scooters for every fat oldster that hints the might want one.

When will Rush say that those oldsters are sluts and whores because they expect us to pay for scooters they use to chase each other around the house for SEX, SEX and more SEX!

Conservatives instinctively protect women and children who are God's most valuable assets.

It takes a creepy Libertarian instinct to rule the world by making everything about their money.

A "30 year old long time liberal activist" sounds exactly like the kind of person who would apply to law school and get accepted with enthusiasm, because the schools want students who will contribute to the classroom discussions about the things we talk about in law school, like sex discrimination.

Ann - if you substitute the word "conservative" for "liberal" in the above sentence, do you think the rest of it would be true for most law schools in this country?

I heard the word "co-ed" commonly used to describe the (10:1 outnumbered) female undergraduates on the MIT campus in the early '70's. I have no idea how current it is now.

Meanwhile, as the delicate Althouse is swooning and recovering on her fainting couch at the use of the word "co-ed," we have President Obama calling a THIRTY-YEAR-OLD WOMAN and telling her that her parents should be proud of her, like she is some child.

"The individual women and their doctors have more specific knowledge of which kind of birth control is appropriate"

Great for them. Don't ask me to pay for it. They can, after all, choose to not have sex. Or choose to engage in sexual practices with a smaller chance of resultant pregnancy. They could use condoms.

It would be a significant hardship for me to not own a car. I have a large family and for safety and convienience sake, a large car is recommended. A large car is expensive to buy and has expensive ongoing fuel and maintenance costs. Alternatives are available. I could choose to not drive. I could choose to buy a smaller car, I could choose to borrow or rent a car if I needed one, I do not need to buy the largest most expensive car deemed appropriate by experts.

Chemical or hormonal birth control is not the only way to reduce symptoms of ovarian cysts, cramps, or endometriosis and, at any rate, there is probably a process in place to challenge the formulary if those therapies aren't covered. They may have to jump through some hoops, it may take a while, but either they will end up covered or a suitable replacement will eventually be found.

I think you have bought into the line that this is an anti-woman debate, when it's not. The reaction to this woman is based on the statements she made. Statements that many think are untrue or exaggerated. I don't think anyone would think she was telling a wholly unbiased fact-based story.

If a student told me they needed my help paying the bills and I found out they spent $3000 dollars a year on coffee, I'd think they a) drank too much coffee b) spent too much on the coffee they drank c) were scamming me. If I'm not allowed to call the student a liar (and let's suppose I'm not), a or b is the answer. That student can buy their own coffee.

Limbaugh called Fluke a slut. After that the argument was lost. You can argue the fine points of this case all you want, but that's what most people will remember about the case.....I truly think that the expense of contraceptive measures for law students is not one of the major problems facing our great nation. The big problem is that conservatives so easily lose such an argument.

Not a big McCain fan. But all I see is McCain offering an explanation of why Democrats might not want to offer notice of Fluke as a witness 72 hours before the hearing according to the rules. All based on her published views on mandated insurance coverage for sexual reassignment.

So, instead Althouse's rebuff focuses on McCain's link to a source that uses the word "co-ed".

Part of me thinks Althouse might have read Dr. Helen Smith's "A Nation of Mean Girls" post today. As I wrote in the comments there, I thought Smith's argument decrying Limbaugh's apology was off the mark.

So, did Althouse read Smith's post and is she using McCain as a proxy for her negative reaction to Smith's post and arguments like it?

If so, was that substitution sexist?

Are Smith and Althouse both "Mean Girls" for exactly opposite reasons?

I guess we've gotten to the point where historically women should be ladies because, you know, 'boys will be boys' (otherwise). The Republicans have been scoring own goals. That happens when you have to play close to your own goal. The current law and policy has taken us there. Rush didn't make a good lawyer in this instance. He should have read the opponent's deposition.

I do feel repelled from certain Republican. This post is meant to wake up Republicans who are making it too hard for me to stand near them. As I said, they stepped in it and they don't have the sense to wipe off their shoes and walk somewhere better.

Noting that they make some blatantly ridiculous arguments, which demonstrates that this isn't some political naive, that is off-limits?

Funny, I didn't hear a word about unfair it is that Joe the Plumber was "outed" for not having a plumbing license (ignoring that it was irrelevant in the state). And he did, literally, nothing to bring the heat on himself.

Where were these paragons o' civility back then?

If somebody is going to be used as a poster child for something, which she is happily doing, then she becomes a subject as well.

Do men get free condoms under any insurance policy? I don't know of any that do that, so where is the "unfairness" here?

Minnesota Democrats introduced a bill today to make it illegal for any insurance plan to have a co-pay on birth control (except for condomns).

Then the conservatives should campaign that they want cancer patients to die because they won't make their premiums zero.

Ditto heart patients.

Ditto AIDS patients.

Ditto parents. "Sorry, Bob and Sue, little Johnny has to die so this college student can get birth control. The cost had to increase to cover that requirement and, well, the Democrats don't remotely care enough about YOU to protect you as they do these assorted college students."

That may be true, but those kinds of birth control aren't advisable for all women. You're not in the best position to make these decisions. The individual women and their doctors have more specific knowledge of which kind of birth control is appropriate. I recommend reading up on how birth control actually works. It isn't as cheap and simple as you're making it sound.

True.

So why is it no problem for an insurance company to provide it for free?

Yeah, GOP just keep telling the voters of America that their sexually-active daughters are sluts.

Yes, Dems, keep telling people that they HAVE to pay for the birth control of others.

Why should I cover the things that allow anybody to be more promiscuous? Why is it MY job rather than the parents who you believe take grave offense?

I wouldn't support paying for men to have free condoms, either --- but the "birth control should be free" brigade isn't making that argument anyway.

Why would any male actually support Progressives when they so CLEARLY hate men?

I have often wondered how it came to pass that Rudy Vallee with his posh Whiffenpoof accents became the voice of that Depression anthem, Brother Can You Spare a Dime. You would have thought that someone grittier would have recorded the song. This is what conservatives should be discussing.

Is her testimony before Congress a good example of what these specially selected law students generally produce?

Georgetown should be embarrassed to see such inane, frivolous, and irrational arguments being asserted by one of its students.

But, although it has been some time since I've been personally involved, in moot court competitions between the various law schools in D.C., Georgetown routinely produced the worst of the lot, unable to reason or argue their way out of a paper bag.

Instead, the only thing that they ever convinced people of was that the "smartest people" are usually the dumbest ones in the room. Aren't you glad that it is these types who end up in government, courts, and becoming law professors?

What is the first rule to observe when one finds him/her self in a hole of their own making?

That's right, quit digging.

That's what RS McCain and the Right should do on this issue, quit digging. The fact that Fluke appears to be an unabashed political progressive doesn't alter the fact that Limbaugh's actions were out of bounds, and, as it turns out, counterproductive.

Limbaugh messed up when he went out of his way to marginalize Fluke by calling her a slut without doing it directly. He thought he was being clever. He wasn't.

Limbaugh s/h questioned her numbers and moved on. Instead he took the low road and made it easy for the Left to turn the tables here.

24. edhHelen, must say on this one I think you are wrong here about perception and strategy, if not substance as well. Whether Fluke was used by, or is part of, the “mean girl” leftist establishment (I think she’s an aspirant), you have to be able make that case factually before you can claim it for humor or analogy, especially in ways that are otherwise deprecating at the most personal level. Limbaugh’s analogy was tenuous at best.

If Fluke fudged her facts on the cost of contraception, call her out on that. Even if the cost of contraception were related to how much sex one has, that does not necessarily indicate promiscuity. If her legal scholarship and activism are extreme left, document it.

For most people, Fluke’s introduction was Rush Limbaugh’s comments. And that was a huge miscalculation on his part.

AA....good point. And you could be a good guage for the type of person Republicans shouldn't ignore or alienate. A more liberal person who actually looks at the candidates and the long-term ramifications of current and proposed policies.

I do feel repelled from certain Republican. This post is meant to wake up Republicans who are making it too hard for me to stand near them. As I said, they stepped in it and they don't have the sense to wipe off their shoes and walk somewhere better.

Which of these "Republicans that stepped in it" are running for office? Called a 30-year old to let her know Big Daddy approves of her activism? Accepted $1M from a misogynist?

I think what Ann A is saying is that you don't have to convince her that what Rush said is fine. But that you have to convince others who see things in similiar ways to her, that Republicans are best right now to run the state and country.

Aw, bullshit to this.You see her as you want to see her, as a capable woman fulfilling her activist calling, and are offended by old-fashioned dad-like "co-ed" terminology. (I see a dishonest hack and a statist pawn unworthy of sexist commentary. Just another asshole.) Most people are not coming from either of these perspectives. Most people, including women, see "co-ed," or variations thereon, because that's the role she's playing, that's how she's dressed. Drudge has a photo of her on The View being all wide-eyed and WTF-I-just-want-some-free-birth-control.That IS how the left sold her, as she sold herself, as an innocent young lady, which she was not. She played the part, she was a pawn for her ideology. Whether or not she actually IS in real life a "co-ed," or whatever less old-fashioned terminology suits, is beside the point, waste of time. It's perception over reality all the time with the left and there is nothing wrong and everything right with pointing that out as frequently as possible. Which is is what Rush was doing in the first place.

If it wasn't this asshole it would be some other distraction to avoid discussing serious matters.

"Republicans need to be fact-based and smart on anything that has to do with science."

But that's just it. People have taken the FACT that she presented - $1k per year - and have tried to understand where the number comes from. You want her to escape criticism for that quantitative data which is designed to cause people to empathize. We want her to stand behind her number. Call her a widget for all I care. She went before Congress and presented data.

In birth control there is fixed cost control (BCP, diaphragms) and variable cost control (condoms). Given the number she presented, it means that she is asking her plan to cover both fixed and variable cost birth control which leads to the inevitable question - how much sex do the plan sponsors need to pay for?

If it was some frat dude with ripped jeans who appeared on the hill and said - "hey who's going to pay for my $1k worth of condoms because my sex life is making me broke???" he would have been LAUGHED out of Congress.

Let me ask this -- Why do you have such hatred for women's bodies? Why such this insistence that a healthy woman's body is bad and that she can only be "equal" if she essentially cuts out a part of herself?

How the hell is that respecting women, to despise their essential womanness?

I do feel repelled from certain Republican[s]. This post is meant to wake up Republicans who are making it too hard for me to stand near them. As I said, they stepped in it and they don't have the sense to wipe off their shoes and walk somewhere better.

Repulsion, along with attraction, are two primary forces used by political catalysts.

So, let me get this straight. A woman says - the Catholic Church needs to pay for me to get birth control - and asking the question, "why" is disrespectful to women.

I guess the "best" thing the Republicans could have done when Ms. Fluke appeared before Congress is to ignore the testimony. In the end, it doesn't matter if it's $3k or $30k because the number is immaterial. In the end, it's not right to ask a religious institution to be asked to pay for something that runs counter to their doctrine.

But I ask you, Ann. Would you be comfortable with the Republicans completely ignoring her?

. But that you have to convince others who see things in similiar ways to her, that Republicans are best right now to run the state and country.

How can you convince someone who goes looking for Robert Stacey McCain blog posts to find offense, while ignoring the actions of Barack Obama? That's a choice.People in her comments section have made very reasonable points, as have others on the web. Althouse chooses not to engage in those discussions.

Althouse, did you read Dr. Helen Smith's "Mean Girls" post, and was that a source of your revulsion at the "right wing" today?

If so, why did Althouse displace that anger on McCain who really did cite factual information to substantiate a motive why Democrats didn't provide 72 hours notice before Fluke's testimony about insurance mandates and religious freedom?

Althouse: Which is to say: the personal put-downs sound old-fashioned and sexist. The right wing stepped in it with Fluke. Having stepped in it, they keep smushing around in it. As a woman, as a law professor, as a woman law professor, I don't want to be seen anywhere near these guys. Could you start acting normal about women participating in public debate?

It would be hard for Althouse to make that right-wing, male fuddy-duddy argument against Dr. Helen Smith.

So, McCain gets the wrath instead?

Basically, I'm wondering whether this post by Althouse accusing McCain of bullying Fluke is in some measure sexist.

Unfortunately, very few on the right have. As I am on the right muself, I find it utterly dismaying. Dismaying that no matter how many times the right is offered a chance to back off from this total catastrophe, many (a great many of those commenting here) are apparently unable to do so.

In case you hadn't noticed, the right has backed off for the most part (Limbaugh's apology. Maybe the blogs haven't, but why should they? Their points are valid, and the left's are not. Just because milquetoast righty politicians wimp out, doesn't mean other conservatives should.

They are as wedded to an ideological hatred as Peter Gleick was when he fraudulently stole documents on global warming from Heartland.

Ideological hatred? Jesus, are you a plant for the left? This isn't hatred, it's logic. In case it hasn't occurred to you, some of us actually believe a wrong is being perpetrated here, and it should be addressed.

But just as Gleick won't own up to how he came by the one key faked document, and is going down with his ship as a result, so those here are going down clinging to a salacious angle on a story that in fact should have nothing to do with sex at all.

Right, because forging fraudulent documents is the same as calling an issue out as untrue. Some comparison you have there.

Their own sense of grievance and self-righteousness is more important to them than either truth or political effectiveness.

What complete unfettered nonsense. It ain't self-righteousness or grievance, it's arguing on the side of logic. If you think it's honest for a co-ed (yes, I said co-ed) to claim that it costs her $3K over a 3 year period to use contraceptives, then say so. But don't tell me that I shouldn't feel she's full of it.

I'm tired of the jellyfish on the "right", who don't have the cojones to fight back against the left's lies. If you don't like combat, then get out of the warzone completely.

Did anybody notice in the candidate forum on Saturday, a father of a wounded Iraq war vet said their health insurance co-pays are being raised by the Obama administration? At the exact moment women are being promised zero copay tubal ligations?

I heard him too, but didn't put it together until MayBee did above.

Let me reiterate this - the Administration is apparently raising copays on military personnel and their families at the same time that they are mandating that women do not have to pay copays on their birth control (used to prevent pregnancy as a result of recreational sex).

What's the difference here? One is that the government is the employer paying for the military health care, while Georgetown would be the party paying for the birth control. Thus, it doesn't come out of the budget and increase the already over trillion dollar budget deficit. And, we are talking real money, and not symbolic money, which is what is at issue with Ms. Flake.

But, shouldn't we, as a people, be looking at our active military first, and how to take care of them, long before we look at taking care of privileged 30 year old female law students at our elite law schools? Ms. Flake isn't putting her life on the line for the rest of us every time she deploys to the Middle East, or even, we see, in routine training missions. And, yet, this Administration is more worried about her reproductive choices than those heroes who go to war to protect us.

Ill ask again...what Republican is stepping in it? No Republicans are defending him. Bloggers are, but the Party isn't. Are you holding Rush against Romney? Did you ever blame Democrats for the loveliness progressive bloggers have lobbed at you?

"Tax payers pay for women to be on medical leave from work [under disability] when they are pregnant, which would not happen unless they had sex. So why suddenly are conservatives upset about contraception, which is a fraction of the cost?"

Because it's not about sex, Matt. No matter that it seems to be. It's about religious conscience and the notion that religious conviction is silly, doesn't matter, and can be trampled at will to save someone $20 a month.

That this $20 necessity to trample the 1st Amendment is for a voluntary, recreational, activity just makes it more insulting.

And then someone will start to argue that it's instinct or something, that we have the Urge so that makes it not voluntary and not recreational and therefore worthy of trashing the 1st Amendment?

Since Catholic institutions don't prohibit the treatment of medical issues because the treatment doubles as contraception, there is no *there* there to the claims that some poor soul might need contraception for medical reasons and might be denied. All that is left is the entirely optional stuff meant purely for birth control, and there's no reason a person can't be responsible for their own.

And if they end up pregnant instead... I can't imagine that any amount of hand-holding and free pills would have induced responsible behavior. After all, you've got to actually take the pill and put on the condom.

"No matter that it seems to be. It's about religious conscience and the notion that religious conviction is silly, doesn't matter, and can be trampled at will to save someone $20 a month."

And therein lies the rub. See Fluke didn't say $20 a month because she knew that wouldn't get people's attention. She said $3,000. She knew most people would tell her to fluke off if it was $20 a month - "we're not asking the Catholic Church to violate their conscience for $20" So, the number is completely material and requires people to respond - why so much?

Limbaugh called Fluke a slut. After that the argument was lost. You can argue the fine points of this case all you want, but that's what most people will remember about the case

No, it's because that's all the media is focusing on, and that republicans are wussies and won't stand up to that. They continue to frame the debate accordingly.

I truly think that the expense of contraceptive measures for law students is not one of the major problems facing our great nation. The big problem is that conservatives so easily lose such an argument.

Where does it end, then? When the Obama administration continually puts out small items, are we supposed to just swallow it whole because they're not major problems? The slipperly slope argument applies here - if you let the government decide that birth control MUST be covered, then what's next? Maybe it'll be one of your bugaboos, and maybe we'll tell you that it ain't such a big deal.

It's always somewhat amusing when one the right's heroes, Limbaugh, gets in trouble, and conservatives immediately deflect to previous liberal name calling. While at the same continuing to call liberals childish names.

Conservative name calling being a daily attraction at Althouse notwithstanding.

Ann Althouse said...And all this questioning of the cost of birth control. Read the article JAC linked to or you're exposing yourself to the old "stupid party" criticisms.

Hysterical.

An article "linked to"?

Why didn't you he linked to an article he authored himself?

Or were you trying to pretend either the link or "article" (opinion pieces are not news articles) were objective?

You understand there was nothing interesting, revealing, or insightful there, right?

I mean, it is news to like nobody that some birth control pills cost more than $9 a month.

Prescription birth control pills generally cost between $15 and $50 a month. Neither of which adds up to $3,000 annually.

Further, inexpensive contraceptives are widely available at every supermarket and pharmacy; Medicaid recipients already receive them free; the feds also spend another $300 million annually to provide free contraceptives to those who are low-income, uninsured, or otherwise do not qualify for Medicaid; and Planned Parenthood and state and local public health clinics distribute contraceptives free around the nation.

I guess the overriding concern here is that there seems to be an inconsistent response by the professor over these things. Did Democrats "step in it" during Sullivan's hoky graik quest into Palings uterus? How about Obama accepting a million from a notorious misogynist?

Something else that is missed here is that today is Super Tuesday. I am thinking right now that this bruhaha may ultimately backfire on the Dems here.

The problem for them is that the candidate most hurt by it has been Rick Santorum. Mitt Romney is pretty well sheltered from it by his response to the query back in Jan by (former?) Democratic operative Stephenopolis. And, Romney has shown good message discipline the last couple of weeks, in contrast to Santorum who has not.

The result is that a lot of people are now moving towards the Romney is inevitable camp, and that likely increases his chances of, indeed, being the nominee who gets to run against Obama in November.

What is the problem there for the Dems? After all, Romney wears funny underwear, is active in a church that practiced polygamy until a bit over a century ago, and fired a lot of people when at Bain Capital.

The problem is that Santorum is the social conservative candidate at a time when we need fiscal discipline and conservatism. A social conservative is not going to win against Obama this election, but a social moderate who has a reputation at being detail oriented and able to cut costs may have such a chance, and indeed, is probably the only type of candidate who does.

If this helps Romney firm up the nomination, it just gives him that much more time to prepare for the general election, and reduces the chances of a brokered convention that would like divide the Republican party and result in an unvetted candidate.

AA has left the Cruel Neutrality station and is now shilling for the hysterical left-feminist supremacists. I do not say this lightly. I always have enjoyed it when she applies it honestly.

Ann, women have to earn respect, just like men; individually and with reason. Our nation isn't a huge gang where criticizing someone is "disrespecting" them and thus worthy of punishment.

I respect women as I respect any other citizen or person.

But if you think other citizens are put here on this earth to give free shit to you, or to make your life easier for you, simply because you are a woman, you are not worthy of respect. You are not a feminist; you are a supremacist.

"A "30 year old long time liberal activist" sounds exactly like the kind of person who would apply to law school and get accepted with enthusiasm... we want students who will take their law school education and use it different ways, especially in political activism."

Right, so you want to fill the country with underemployed, impoverished, resentful gimme-gimme-gimme political activists trained in the law.

My God, law schools really are a pox on this poor country, aren't they?

Cathleen Cleaver Ruse's analysis and position is excellent--well, I would think so, I suppose, because it pretty much sums up my thinking. ; ) More important, it is logical, principled and defensible. Although someone here already posted it, I will do so again.

Second, it is gobsmackingly stupid that so many people, including so many commenters, not only refuse to see the damage be wrought by continuing to use such words as "slut" and "prostitute" and such imagery and analogies as "if I pay, then she should put out for me" or "paying her to have sex," and so forth and so on, either generically or--more to the point--personally directed at Fluke, however flawed she may be. It is stupid. There is no moral high-ground involved in that (and it doesn't MATTER what the other side or does not do: you're still betraying your own principles and acting like complete ignorant, asshole jerks, each and every one of you, male and female alike, but especially male). This is a loser, among multiple groups in the electorate. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop. Stop and take a look at what you're doing.

Discuss instead what you say ought to be the focus of the discussion (as, for example, Ruse does, in part--which qualifier I use only because of course there are many other rational, logical, well-reasoned etc. arguments in ADDITION to the ones she made). You keep saying those OTHER people ought to be focusing on/discussing the real issue[s]. Well then, why don't YOU! Just do it! Stop--as Althouse described--smushing around in it [the crap] and keep focusing on and fighting on the merits of the actual issues. Delay your self-indulgent satisfaction in getting to use naughty words and bang on the drum non-PC this 'n' that and making swipes at feminism and blah-de-blah-de-blah (even where earned) and get on with it.

"As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students’ birth control."

We're to believe she's so intent on getting this done...that she literally enrolled and has stuck it out for three years...all so the university would pay for her contraceptives?

This is just another example of attacking the messenger...especially when the messenger is a target of Ann and Meade's very favorite cretin.

What is the problem there for the Dems? After all, Romney wears funny underwear, is active in a church that practiced polygamy until a bit over a century ago, and fired a lot of people when at Bain Capital.

Fluke was a dog and pony show Pelosi set up to give a "testimony" of hearsay and anecdote which we are not to criticize on account of Ms. Fluke's lady-parts. Women's opinions are always superior because their experience is superior, naturally. She included only one supposed fact. Just one! And that is that birth control costs $1000 a year.

Rush is irrelevant. Stacy McCain is irrelevant. Fluke seems to have made a profession of fanning the flames of victimhood where she can imply things contrary to fact and not get called a liar. I suppose she does it by not quite saying anything is *so*, just by saying she got a frantic phone call or email from some frantic nincompoop who is frantic.

Michelle Bachmann tried that with the immunization thing and nearly everyone on the right thought she was being a complete idiot.

Fluke gets a pass? Or rather, Fluke gets a softly wrapped cocoon of happiness to cushion her professional victimhood?

"Nationwide, there are two aspiring lawyers with passing bar-exam scores for every one open job; in New York State, the ratio is even more lopsided, with 9,787 passing the bar in 2009, then competing for roughly 2,100 new positions."

We're to believe she's so intent on getting this done...that she literally enrolled and has stuck it out for three years...all so the university would pay for her contraceptives?

Um, yeah. 'Cause that's what she did.

From The Examiner:

Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

"Instead of whining and bitching about her...why not post your ass outside of a major corporation that pays NO taxes but in turn enjoys all of the benefits of American society?"

I used to work in corporate accounting for a Fortune 100 company. Trust me...even if the company can pull a GE and pay zero federal income tax, they are still taxed into the hundred of millions of dollars. Just a few:

Local property tax. Probably around $300,000 for a retail store, maybe several million for a large factory.

"Privlidge tax" If you do business in NYC, you pay a large tax for the "prvilege of being in NYC".

"Special assesments". That is one way to get those schools built.

Various employment and payroll taxes.

"Shakedown" money. California is very good at saying you discriminate against someone/something, but can make it better with a hefty donation to a cause of their choosing.

I'm sorry Althouse's post is so hard for people to swallow here, but the thing is, she's right. Every single word. For instance, please, someone tell me where the promiscuity inference got started, anyway. Was it because she said she would have to pay 1G/year for it? I don't think she ever said "I'm having so much sex, I can't pay for birth control", as Rush stated in his diatribe. I know why people got derailed and continue in the same rut, you made the mistake of attacking the messenger instead of the message. Maybe, too, it's because Palin's treatment from the left never got an apology but just kept on and on. Have your values and heros, yes! But don't get so easily played next time. Jon says, "Their own sense of grievance and self-righteousness is more important to them than either truth or political effectiveness," when speaking of an AGW bot. You can't die on this hill, there are much better ones for that--and I will follow you there! One last thing I've got to say: There is a lesson we need to learn from Breitbart, who waded into and did not recoil in horror of, the culture on the Left in order to understand and then take down his enemy.

AA says to read the article JAC posted. Well I did and here is what a DOCTOR wrote in the comments:

03/05/2012 - 7:35am EDT | AaronW While I have no sympathy with anyone on the anti-contraceptive-funding side of this debate, I have to admit that as a medical doctor (though not one who prescribes OCPs) I was a little dismayed when I learned the details of Fluke's testimony. I don't doubt that she believes the story she told to be true, and I suspect that she relayed much as it was told to her, it has the smell of the kind of fuzzy, something-happened-to-a-friend-of-mine anecdote in which certain details get exaggerated, others deemphasized and still others left out altogether. 1) While it is certainly the case that not all oral contraceptives can be had for $9/month, $100/month is indeed unusually expensive. 2) The ass ... view full comment

While I have no sympathy with anyone on the anti-contraceptive-funding side of this debate, I have to admit that as a medical doctor (though not one who prescribes OCPs) I was a little dismayed when I learned the details of Fluke's testimony. I don't doubt that she believes the story she told to be true, and I suspect that she relayed much as it was told to her, it has the smell of the kind of fuzzy, something-happened-to-a-friend-of-mine anecdote in which certain details get exaggerated, others deemphasized and still others left out altogether.

1) While it is certainly the case that not all oral contraceptives can be had for $9/month, $100/month is indeed unusually expensive.

2) The assumption that Fluke's classmate failed to take the prescribed OCPs because she couldn't afford them or, at least, solely because she couldn't afford them is open to question. I can attest that patients, including highly motivated, intelligent patients, find all sorts of excuses not to take prescribed medications that they find disagreeable. According to the story Fluke's classmate was prescribed the contraceptive to prevent the enlargement of symptomatic ovarian cysts, not to prevent pregnancy. It is quite possible that she found the side effects of her OCPs unpleasant and that the risk of future cyst rupture, hemorrhage or torsion didn't seem like a good enough reason at the time to put up with immediate discomfort. Later, after she lost an ovary as a result of her short-sighted decision not to take a prescribed medication, blaming Georgetown's refusal to pay for it may have been face-saving.

3) There is an assumption of causation in Fluke's story--i.e. because the friend couldn't obtain her meds she lost an ovary and now is experiencing early menopause--that may not be valid. Causation in medicine is a tricky thing. The friend might have lost an ovary even if she had taken the OCPs, and the idea that she could be experiencing premature ovarian failure--early menopause--as a result of a unilateral oopherectomy is quite far-fetched. Men and women both need just one gonad for normal reproductive health, and if this woman is in fact in early menopause, there is almost certainly something else going on that has nothing to do with her cysts or her operation.

4) The whole story isn't really germane to the question at hand. Georgetown could come out and say, "Progesterone/estrogen tablets used for medical purposes other than prevention of pregnancy will be covered by our health plan" and Fluke's classmate would have no grievance. The real question is whether the prevention of pregnancy--which has profound consequences for women's health--should itself be a required component of health insurance plans. Personally, I think it should, but the unfortunate story of Fluke's classmate doesn't really help make that argument.

All of this whining about a law student...when, at the same time, most here (whether you'll admit it or not) will be voting for this blatant liar:

Romney has come under fire for his 2009 USA Today op-ed in recent days. In it, he suggested that President Obama look to Massachusetts, and adopt an individual mandate as part of national health care reform.

He writes an op-ed touting the mandate and overall program he himself implemented and suggested for the entire country...than stands in front of a crowd of (idiots perhaps?)...and says he never did anyting of the sort.

The Washington Post spoke to Ms. Fluke after Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) refused to let her testify in a hearing regarding religious freedom.

From the Post:

Democrats invited her to speak at that hearing, hoping that she would tell Republicans how much birth control meant to her. As the Post notes, the topic was so important to Fluke, she actually researched the school's policy before enrolling:

Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

Ann Althouse said...And all this questioning of the cost of birth control. Read the article JAC linked to or you're exposing yourself to the old "stupid party" criticisms.

Republicans need to be fact-based and smart on anything that has to do with science.

And they need to respect women.

If that's too hard....

Pathetic!

What losers!

Watch them lose!

3/6/12 11:54 AM

The economy is in the shitter and about to get worse under Obozo and the democrats and you were going to vote republican but for this?

The reason Fluke hit a nerve is that it is clear that not only is she a willing tool but she is a trojan horse for yet another mandate and taxpayer subsidy. And for the silliest of reasons, subsidizing other people's sex lives. Woman need to respect woman by responsible for their actions and choices in life, birth control being one of them. What about the democrats respecting the taxpayers and productive class instead of being the party of the moochers?

Green lantern, I agree with much of what you have to say, but here is where the slutiness came in.

If she is very short of money, she should spend the least amount possible on her birth control. That probably means buying condomns and only using them when a guy is banging her.

So if she is spending $1,000 a year on condomns, that means she is getting poked in her sweet spot several times a day.

Think about booze. If I am rich, I can spend all I want on booze and put it in the liquor shelf. If I am short of cash and still spending huge amounts of money of booze, it probably means I have an alcohol problem and drink way too much.

Tom Spaulding - I don't give a flying fuck who the Examiner was "quoting."

It's still nothing more than the publishing organization's take on the woman and her motives...for whatever reason.

I have no doubt she wanted things to change, but to infer that she enrolled and has stuck with it for three years...ALL TO ONE END...but not the least bit interested in the actual education...is ridiculous and if you belueve that...it tells me you're not the brightest bulb on the block.

Issa and the rest of the wingnuts who refused to allow her to testify (and of course, the fat fool who decided to take it to another level of crude) are up to their chins in shit...and they deserve it.

But Fluke has been portrayed as an innocent coed by the media when she is in fact a 30 year old feminist activist, I think that is the point. Why is she different than Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham and other conservative women who have been slurred by the liberal media without an apology.a

Person says - I want to be reimbursed for commuting to work because it costs $1k per year. Everyone looks at that and says - but it only costs, on average, $.30 per day. You say, well that may be true, but my commutes cost $2.50 per day. What's going to be the next question out of your mouth?

What we have isn't insurance, it's pre-paid medical. It was Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) that came into being in the 70's and replaced actual insurance.

I have brittle teeth and need an entirely new set. Unfortunately it can cost the price of a new car to acquire a new set. Dental insurance covers only 50% and only up to very low maximum (not anywhere near a new car cost).

John M Auston - So you're saying all major corporations pay their fair share of taxes?

Really?

But even if they don't, WE get to pay them when buying their products?

November 3, 2011:(Reuters) - Thirty large and profitable U.S. corporations paid no income taxes in 2008 through 2010, said a study on Thursday that arrives as Congress faces rising demands for tax reform but seems unable or unwilling to act.